Continuation The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

My own strong opinion (which I've articulated many times previously here) is that no tapes exist, that no tapes were ever made. Deliberately.

I believe that the interrogations of both Sollecito and Knox on 5/6 November were according to a premeditated choreography. I think that the police/PM had already decided (bolstered by dodgy "evidence" and their own (misguided and incompetent) "hunches" and "sleuthing intuition") that a) Knox was involved to some degree in the murder itself, and b) Sollecito therefore had to at least be covering up for Knox when he supported her claim to have spent all that evening/night alone with him in his apartment (and at most, Sollecito himself was also involved in the murder).

And I think that therefore a conscious decision was made to bring Sollecito, and then Knox, in for interrogation at that strangely late hour on 5th November. I suspect that they may initially have planned to do these interrogations in regular daytime hours on the 6th (or maybe even the day after that), but they got wind (via their questionably-legal phone taps) that Knox's mother was arriving in Perugia on the morning of the 6th, and I think they feared that Knox and mother would "flee" immediately back to the US.

I think that the 5/6 November interrogations fit into a classic pattern of "solving the crime" among police and PMs in Italy:

1) The police and PM figure out who committed the crime (though at this point the culprit denies involvement);

2) The police and PM know that if they designated the person whom they "know" committed the crime as a suspect at this point and arrested the person, Italian law would severely limit the nature of interrogation allowable (most importantly, the suspect could only be questioned by the PM, in the presence of his/her lawyer, and would be well aware of the right to silence);

3) The police therefore bring in the person whom they "know" committed the crime for questioning, deliberately without designating that person as a suspect;

4) This allows the police to use any and all sort of.... techniques.... to "persuade" the person to confess to the crime - all without the person having any access to a lawyer, and without any understanding of his/her rights;

5) Critical to the success of this technique is of course the lack of any incontrovertible recording of the interrogation (i.e. audio or video recording) - this allows the police to record the interrogation in writing in the way they want (i.e. omitting any questionable interrogation techniques etc);

6) So, the person is brought in for interrogation, is confronted with evidence etc, and whatever interrogation techniques are required are used in order to get to the ultimate goal: a confession to the crime by the person;

7) At this point, the second crucial part of the choreographed plan kicks in: the confession that has just been obtained is useless in court against the person, since it's been given without access to legal advice or understanding of rights etc...... BUT if the person were to make a "spontaneous declaration" of the same confession to a PM, this would under Italian law be usable against the person in court;

8) So the PM comes into the police station, to sit with the now-broken person, and says something along the lines of: I'm the PM in charge of the whole investigation, and I want to help you as best I can - so why don't we start of by you telling me everything you told the police just now so that I know the full picture;

9) The person falls into the trap and repeats the confession to the PM, who can then try to classify this as a "spontaneous declaration" and use it in the prosecution at trial as a virtual slam-dunk for conviction.

So, as outlined in step 5, I think that it was a critically necessary part of the choreography that there should be no audio or video recording of those interrogations of Sollecito and Knox on 5/6 November. And furthermore, neither the police nor PM could possibly risk recording the interrogations and then hiding the tapes: no, it was important that no tape was ever even inserted into the recording devices. That way, the police and PM could manipulate the written recordings of the interrogations to suit their purposes (and, of course, to hide/obscure any instances of police misconduct during the interrogations).

I think you are most likely correct. It is grotesquely suspicious that they recorded so many other interviews and not the interviews leading to the arrests of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick. Their absence demonstrates in view of all the other recordings that their absence was calculated.

Now Machiavelli said that it was illegal to record such interviews. Personally, I never believed that explanation.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Where is your evidence that the Italian government - not Mignini or some police officer - has said that no audiovisual tape/digital recording of the interrogation exists? And I'm not saying that the Italian government has said that it does.

Two things. The first being that Mignini and/or a police officer are representatives of a branch of Italian government. Second, at this time I have no evidence. I could be wrong very easily. I'm going entirely off my potentially very flawed memory. Still, recordings of the interviews was discussed a lot in various forums and I can't remember anyone ever saying these interviews were recorded. I do recall a lot of excuses why they weren't.

Originally Posted by Numbers

But if the ECHR asked for all records of the interrogation, by treaty, the Italian government would be obligated to search for them or to verify and acknowledge that indeed no such records were made.

Granted. That said, it seems unlikely that they might be searching for something not in the court records

Originally Posted by Numbers

Let's recall the bottom line of the April, 2016 ECHR Communication to Italy (translated from the French text):

"QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

2. If so:

a) Was the applicant subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment?

b) Was the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, informed promptly, in a language she could understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charges against her for false accusation?

c) Did the applicant have the assistance of counsel of her choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during the interrogation of 6 November 2007?

d) Did the applicant obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?

e) Did the psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during the interrogations of 6 November 2007, violate the right of the applicant to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?"

What better way for Italy to answer these questions than to provide a full account, by means of an audiovisual recording, of the interrogation?

For this, there is no doubt. I agree.

Originally Posted by Numbers

And if Italy cannot or will not provide a record of the interrogation which is adequately complete in the view of the ECHR, the ECHR will, according to its case law, make such inferences about the conduct of Italy and its agents (the police and prosecution) as the ECHR believes reasonable relating to the events that transpired and the records that are available.

Therefore, the only reliable contemporary record of the interrogation, to my knowledge, is Amanda Knox's Memoriale 1, in which she stated that the police threatened her and hit her during the interrogation. Furthermore, it is agreed by both parties that there was no defense lawyer present for the interrogation and none supplied to her until the arrest hearing on Nov. 8.

There are the police transcripts and notes associated with the interrogation. But they will not bother searching for something that hasn't been presented to the Italian courts already.

Originally Posted by Numbers

The Gemelli CSC panel indicated that the Nov. 5/6 interrogations by the police and by Mignini violated Italian law CPP Article 63. Therefore, the CSC ruled that Amanda's statements from the interrogations could not be used against her for the murder/rape charges. However, the CSC went on to rule that because Amanda had written Memoriale 1, a defense document (even though she had no lawyer at that point, contrary to Italian law and ECHR case-law), her statements from the interrogation could be used against her for the charge of calunnia against Lumumba. And Amanda was convicted of calunnia based on that evidence.

Therefore, because she had no lawyer during the interrogation, her conviction for calunnia was in violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c. Also, her treatment during the interrogation was in violation of Convention Article 3, because threatened and hit in order to coerce her to make a statement. That means that there was a violation of Convention Article 6.1 because she was convicted by information obtained in violation of Convention Article 3.

So, when I imagine the Italian government - the personnel in the Foreign Minister's office would be responsible for carrying out the ECHR/CoE duties - thinking about the above facts, I further imagine them vigorously and thoroughly searching for the detailed and contemporary record - which may be an audiovisual recording - of the interrogation that the police and prosecutor should have made of the interrogations.

Yes...but it is beyond my imagination. I'm just not that creative I guess.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

I think you are most likely correct. It is grotesquely suspicious that they recorded so many other interviews and not the interviews leading to the arrests of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick. Their absence demonstrates in view of all the other recordings that their absence was calculated.

Now Machiavelli said that it was illegal to record such interviews. Personally, I never believed that explanation.

And I'd bet Mach provided no evidence of this claim. That seems to be a common occurrence in so many PGP claims.

Two things. The first being that Mignini and/or a police officer are representatives of a branch of Italian government. Second, at this time I have no evidence. I could be wrong very easily. I'm going entirely off my potentially very flawed memory. Still, recordings of the interviews was discussed a lot in various forums and I can't remember anyone ever saying these interviews were recorded. I do recall a lot of excuses why they weren't.

Granted. That said, it seems unlikely that they might be searching for something not in the court records

For this, there is no doubt. I agree.

There are the police transcripts and notes associated with the interrogation. But they will not bother searching for something that hasn't been presented to the Italian courts already.

Yes...but it is beyond my imagination. I'm just not that creative I guess.

The ECHR could and would ask the Italian government to provide all relevant records. It's for the Italian government (not the Italian judicial system) to decide what that means. So, therefore, I believe the Italian government would like to find a recording in this case that would negate Amanda's Memoriale 1. I imagine them seeking such a recording. I don't believe that they would find it. But remember, the head honchos (Giobbi etc.) were listening in on the interrogation - so maybe there was some recording of it at one point in time. I doubt that the police and prosecution would let any such recording, if it was made, remain in existence.

Two things. The first being that Mignini and/or a police officer are representatives of a branch of Italian government. Second, at this time I have no evidence. I could be wrong very easily. I'm going entirely off my potentially very flawed memory. Still, recordings of the interviews was discussed a lot in various forums and I can't remember anyone ever saying these interviews were recorded. I do recall a lot of excuses why they weren't.

Granted. That said, it seems unlikely that they might be searching for something not in the court records

For this, there is no doubt. I agree.

There are the police transcripts and notes associated with the interrogation. But they will not bother searching for something that hasn't been presented to the Italian courts already.

Yes...but it is beyond my imagination. I'm just not that creative I guess.

Originally Posted by Numbers

The ECHR could and would ask the Italian government to provide all relevant records. It's for the Italian government (not the Italian judicial system) to decide what that means. So, therefore, I believe the Italian government would like to find a recording in this case that would negate Amanda's Memoriale 1. I imagine them seeking such a recording. I don't believe that they would find it. But remember, the head honchos (Giobbi etc.) were listening in on the interrogation - so maybe there was some recording of it at one point in time. I doubt that the police and prosecution would let any such recording, if it was made, remain in existence.

I should point out that I am imagining the possible search for a recording of the interrogation by the Italian government essentially to fill in the time while I am awaiting the ECHR publication of the judgment in Knox v. Italy.

I find it amusing to consider how the search would begin in the police station in Perugia and expand, from the city of Perugia to the province of Perugia through the region of Umbria, and then to the immediately surrounding regions, until all of Italy was searched.

Others might not find that imagined search an amusing concept.

The reality is that the ECHR will find against Italy and for Knox, based upon ECHR case-law. Of that, I am confident. The only questions about this, in my mind, are the extent of details that the ECHR will include in the judgment. For example:

Will the ECHR consider the many hours Knox spent in police contact as part of a pattern of police mistreatment? (The ECHR did find such extensive police contact - where a suspect was arrested and then released in the same day repeatedly - a sign of mistreatment in one other case. Of course there is the difference that Knox was not in fact arrested each day, only questioned, until the final interrogation of Nov. 5/6.)

How will the ECHR treat the charges brought against Knox of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini? Will it ignore them as a minor element, or will it include them as showing a pattern of violation of Convention Article 3, procedural branch, and/or an attempt by the Italian authorities to intimidate or punish Knox to discourage her from exercising her rights?

How will the ECHR treat Mignini's history of making false accusations and engaging in prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of power, as in his role in the MoF, considering that the charges against him were allowed to expire under the statute of limitations? Ignore this matter because the case against Italy is solid without it, or bring it out to emphasize certain human rights issues? In particular, the ECHR in its case-law has stated that a police officer known to abuse power and mistreat suspects should not be allowed to continue that behavior with new suspects. Would the ECHR extend that principle here to a prosecutor with a bad history, but who was not found guilty? Would the Superior Council of the Judiciary's censure of Mignini for depriving Sollecito of counsel contrary to Italian law come into play? Knox was similarly illegally deprived of her right to counsel, although to my knowledge the SCJ made no ruling in her case.

In considering such possibilities, it's important to remember the conflict that ECHR faces in moving as quickly as possible through its tens of thousands of pending cases while fulfilling its mandate of advancing and defining human rights in the CoE through interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights by means of case law.

There are the police transcripts and notes associated with the interrogation. But they will not bother searching for something that hasn't been presented to the Italian courts already.

...

To my knowledge, there are no credible police transcripts or notes associated with the interrogation that were recorded at the relevant time.

I know (or believe) that there was a list of names of males who had visited the cottage as supposedly provided early in the interrogation by Amanda and written up by one of the female police officers.

I am certain there were the two statements in Italian, written up by the police (1st statement) and by the police or prosecutor (2nd statement, the "spontaneous" one) signed by Amanda.

I know of a statement signed by Sollecito from his interrogation.

I know there is the arrest warrant drawn up by Mignini on Nov. 6, which relied on heavily on Amanda's statements and included a citation of her phone text message that I believe should be considered false by omission of the "good night" (in Italian) ending. The omission changed the apparent meaning of the message.

I would like to know what other police transcripts or notes exist, recorded in writing or other reliable recording method, signed and dated, from the time of the interrogation or immediately afterwards, such as Nov. 6/7. My impression from the Boninsegna motivation report is that there were no such other transcripts or notes, not even a proper indication of when the questioning began and ended, which was a significant factor in leading Boninsegna to acquit Amanda of continuing aggravated calunnia against the police.

I think you are most likely correct. It is grotesquely suspicious that they recorded so many other interviews and not the interviews leading to the arrests of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick. Their absence demonstrates in view of all the other recordings that their absence was calculated.

Now Machiavelli said that it was illegal to record such interviews. Personally, I never believed that explanation.

To be fair to Mach he never said it was illegal. He said (and probably correctly) that the recording was not admissible in Italian courts, so a transcription would have to be prepared - this was too expensive and so was not routinely done. In the UK there is a system of duplicate recording that allows the defence to have a copy of the interview, the police / prosecution have a copy and their is a sealed master copy in case there is any dispute over editing of the interview (or there is a recorder failure).

However as you have pointed out interviews with other witnesses in this case were routinely recorded. The fact that no recording was made for this interview indicates that the police were treating it differently from a simple 'witness' interview.

To be fair to Mach he never said it was illegal. He said (and probably correctly) that the recording was not admissible in Italian courts, so a transcription would have to be prepared - this was too expensive and so was not routinely done. In the UK there is a system of duplicate recording that allows the defence to have a copy of the interview, the police / prosecution have a copy and their is a sealed master copy in case there is any dispute over editing of the interview (or there is a recorder failure).

However as you have pointed out interviews with other witnesses in this case were routinely recorded. The fact that no recording was made for this interview indicates that the police were treating it differently from a simple 'witness' interview.

This is an indication that Knox and Sollecito were suspects and not mere witnesses by this time. The PGP like to give this as an excuse for there being no recording. If anything, this was all more the reason for recording the interrogation. I believe it was a deliberate and calculated decision made by the police.

This is an indication that Knox and Sollecito were suspects and not mere witnesses by this time. The PGP like to give this as an excuse for there being no recording. If anything, this was all more the reason for recording the interrogation. I believe it was a deliberate and calculated decision made by the police.

If there were any audiovisual recording, or any credible police transcript or notes, of Knox's Nov. 5/6 interrogation showing that she had committed calunnia against Lumumba (calunnia being, by definition, a voluntary and knowingly false accusation against someone stated to the police or judiciary), it would have been presented by the prosecution at Knox's trial for continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini. But no such evidence was presented.

The reason why such records would have been presented by the prosecution in Knox's trial for continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini is that it would have undermined her defense that she had been mistreated by the police and prosecution during the interrogation.

Thus, either no such records ever existed, or Italian authorities (state agents such as police or prosecution) that had possession of such records have destroyed them or are withholding them.

Boninsegna used the lack of such records, including even such details ordinarily required in Italian records of interrogation or questioning such as the beginning and end of the interrogation or questioning and who was present, as evidence supporting Knox's defense against the charges of continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini. She was finally and definitively acquitted of those charges.

The Boninsegna judgment is likely to be critical to how the ECHR will approach its judgment in Knox v. Italy. This is clear because the ECHR in its Communication of April, 2016 specifically asks if the judgment is final in Information Request #2. The ECHR also asked for the documents of Knox's original conviction by the Massei court for aggravated calunnia against Lumumba each related appeal (Information Request #1). Here is the relevant text (English translation from French original):

"INFORMATION REQUEST

1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court {Massei court} of 5 December 2009 regarding her conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal {to the Hellmann court} and of the appeal {to the Chieffi CSC panel} regarding this procedure {trial on charges of calunnia against Lumumba}.

2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court {Boninsegna court} of 14 January 2016 was appealed or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents."

I think you are most likely correct. It is grotesquely suspicious that they recorded so many other interviews and not the interviews leading to the arrests of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick. Their absence demonstrates in view of all the other recordings that their absence was calculated.

Now Machiavelli said that it was illegal to record such interviews. Personally, I never believed that explanation.

Originally Posted by Planigale

To be fair to Mach he never said it was illegal. He said (and probably correctly) that the recording was not admissible in Italian courts, so a transcription would have to be prepared - this was too expensive and so was not routinely done. In the UK there is a system of duplicate recording that allows the defence to have a copy of the interview, the police / prosecution have a copy and their is a sealed master copy in case there is any dispute over editing of the interview (or there is a recorder failure).

However as you have pointed out interviews with other witnesses in this case were routinely recorded. The fact that no recording was made for this interview indicates that the police were treating it differently from a simple 'witness' interview.

It's hard to know what Machiavelli was saying about it. Suffice it to say that Machiavelli knew that the whole issue was so fraught with danger to Mignini, that Machiavelli buried his discussions about it under a weight of word salads.

The best that Anglolawyer ever got out of Machiavelli was that the latter was claiming that when she'd been interrogated she had been something akin to "almost a suspect, but not quite". Other than that, it was hard to tell exactly what Machiaveli had been arguing for - except that he was damned sure that Giuliano Mignini had been the hero throughout all this, regardless.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

It's hard to know what Machiavelli was saying about it. Suffice it to say that Machiavelli knew that the whole issue was so fraught with danger to Mignini, that Machiavelli buried his discussions about it under a weight of word salads.

The best that Anglolawyer ever got out of Machiavelli was that the latter was claiming that when she'd been interrogated she had been something akin to "almost a suspect, but not quite". Other than that, it was hard to tell exactly what Machiaveli had been arguing for - except that he was damned sure that Giuliano Mignini had been the hero throughout all this, regardless.

I can assure that nowhere in the CPP (Italian Code of Criminal Procedure) is there an article stating that making a recording of a witness interview or suspect interrogation is contrary to law.

It's hard to know what Machiavelli was saying about it. Suffice it to say that Machiavelli knew that the whole issue was so fraught with danger to Mignini, that Machiavelli buried his discussions about it under a weight of word salads.

The best that Anglolawyer ever got out of Machiavelli was that the latter was claiming that when she'd been interrogated she had been something akin to "almost a suspect, but not quite". Other than that, it was hard to tell exactly what Machiaveli had been arguing for - except that he was damned sure that Giuliano Mignini had been the hero throughout all this, regardless.

Originally Posted by Numbers

I can assure that nowhere in the CPP (Italian Code of Criminal Procedure) is there an article stating that making a recording of a witness interview or suspect interrogation is contrary to law.

If I had either implied that, or even said it outright, I would have been wrong.... meaning that Machiavelli IIRC had never claimed that recording an interview of either a suspect or "person informed of the facts" had been illegal.

He simply skirted the issue, mainly by constructing large convoluted word-salads.

It's the Achilles Heel of any guilter, it's one of the disingenuous issues in John Follain's book, "A Death in Italy". It's why they cannot - in the end - compose a timeline of the crime which involves the claimed evidence, and AK and/or RS's involvement in the crime.

The guilter claim is two-fold: the police had to genuinely and for good reason suspect Knox from the beginning (right from when RS had told Napoleoni about the pooh in the toilet on the morning of the 2nd)....

..... while at the same time not viewing either of them as potential suspects, up until Knox was bullied into saying something about Lumumba after the "See you later" SMS text had been pointed out to her. That one was supposed to have been out of the blue, at Knox's sole initiative, which the police claimed was the big break in the case....

.... all the while, while even seconds beforehand they had not thought Knox involved.

Guilters always paint themselves into a corner. Either Knox was or was not a suspect up until the "See you later" SMS message was pointed out to her at a middle-of-the-night interrogation - which the cops admitted had been arranged because Knox' mom was arriving the next morning.

Was she or wasn't she? Machiavelli had sipped on that koolade and betrayed that he knew the pit-fall of answering that most basic of question.

Was she or wasn't she a suspect when Ficarra had gone out into the hall and said to Knox, "It's time for the truth"???? (Which later was described as, (paraphrase) "Eventually she buckled and told us what we had known already."

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Let's forget for the moment our attempts at understandig what the guilters may or may not think and instead address the issue of what the ECHR view will be of Knox v. Italy.

In the Knox v. Italy Communication of April, 2016, a section numbered 2.i was devoted to some brief discussion of the Boninsegna court verdict. I suggest that an examination of the ECHR's excerpts from that verdict indicates the direction that the ECHR will take in its eventual verdict in the case of Knox v. Italy.

Here is an English translation from the original French of Section 2.i. The majority of the translation is by Google Translate, with a little help from Collins Reverso and myself. I have included certain alternative translations or missing words in curly brackets = { }. The text in brackets = [ ] and in parentheses = ( ) are in the original French text. A copy of the French text follows the translation.

i) in the meantime, the applicant {Amanda Knox} was the subject of another criminal procedure for false accusation, in particular concerning the statements she had made on 13 March, 12 and 13 June 2009 {during the trial before the Massei court} against the police officers who carried out her interrogations. By a judgment of 14 January 2016, the Florence {Boninsegna} Court acquitted the applicant.

In particular, it {the Florence court} considered that she had been subjected to intense psychological pressure from the investigators, leading her to formulate {express, state} the name of MDL {Lumumba} for the sole purpose of terminating a treatment contrary to the rights of the person {that is, the applicant} under investigation. The relevant passages of this judgment, as far as the present application is concerned, read as follows:

"The investigation activities (...) concerning the applicant are characterized by numerous procedural irregularities which led the Court of Cassation to consider [1 April 2008] that the statements collected were not usable {because they were obtained in violation of Italian law, CPP Article 63}. (...)

Due to the deficiencies of the [investigation] activities, the minutes are not reliable as to the starting time of the activities. Moreover, the minutes do not indicate the closing times. (...)

The totally inappropriate choice of interpreters was also irregular. These were agents of the Perugia Police Department. Thus they were placed in a situation of professional collaboration with their colleagues who were carrying out the investigations. This resulted in emotionally empathic behavior [with the applicant]. This was taking place in an extremely delicate context, not only for the investigations (the declarations relating to them having been found not usable later) but also concerning the position [of the applicant] who was at that time under investigation.

This ambiguous quality of a person performing auxiliary duties {of interpretation} for the police and, at the same time, belonging to the investigators' own team was accompanied by maternal attitudes and emotional transport {transfer, conveyance} (in particular regarding the behavior not required and at least atypical of [two interpreters] and one of the police officers [some having taken familiar attitudes tending to create empathy with the applicant and the other having taken her hand in hand and having kissed (abbracciata) {the applicant} while she was making accusations against MDL)] (...).

The interpreters should have been foreign {disinterested, not involved} and neutral in relation to the ongoing criminal procedure with the obvious and basic aim of avoiding contaminations that affect the professional performance of the auxiliary {personnel}. (...)

All these circumstances do not appear in the minutes (...). The only appropriate approach in this case was to inform the person under investigation of her rights of defense, declared inviolable in our {Italian} Constitution. This was for the obvious reason that it was a person who was to be put in condition to defend her personal freedom from the authority of the State, the latter having already attributed to [the applicant], by the investigators' bias, the quality of a person being investigated. (...)

This situation is in contradiction with the applicant's immediate subsequent detention {that is, after the interrogation}, {since the applicant} had just been treated with a maternal attitude and kind affection. This course of events certainly created some embarrassment, at least for the person concerned, {and} which should have been avoided (...) in order to safeguard the [applicant's] dignity (...), as well as her personal freedom, as a fundamental and inviolable right of the person, which constitutes an aspect ... of fundamental human rights. (...)

[In this context] the principle of the presumption of innocence was also ignored. (...) »

Comments:
1. ECHR case law considers a violation or abuse of a person's dignity by authorities to be a violation of Convention Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
2. ECHR case law considers a violation of the presumption of innocence a violation of Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial).
3. A reading of this section suggests that ECHR would have no choice but to find Italy in violation of Knox's rights under the Convention. What legitimate counter could Italy offer to defend against such a potential ECHR judgment?

There's a very minor Google Translate slip-up I missed. Google translated the French M. D.L. as MDL. But a better translation would be Mr. D.L.; the "M." in French is of course Monsieur. D.L. is Diya Lumumba, also called Patrick Lumumba.

I had intended to point out in curly brackets that 1 April CSC ruling referred to in Section 2.i is the Gemelli CSC panel motivation report. The original Italian text is available on amandaknoxcase.com:

2. With reference to the second defense complaint, the Court notes that the suspect's statements are characterized by a different regime of usability subjectively. In the event that they come from the person against whom there were already indications {clues or evidence} regarding the same offense or offenses linked to or connected with the one attributed to the third, the statements can not be used against himself, nor against the co-accused of the same crime (or one accused of related to or connected crimes).

The absolutely unusable regime referred to Art. 63, second paragraph, Code of Criminal Procedure, excludes cases where the declarant is called to respond in the same or in any proceedings {trial}, for a crime or crimes attributed to third parties, which have no connection with the trial for the case, for which he takes the status of witness.

In fact, while in the first case, by virtue of the intimate connection and interdependence between the fact itself and that of others is the need to also protect the right to silence of the declarant, in the second case, however, the extraneousness {or strange} position and indifference {or apathy} of the declarant with respect to the facts in the declaration makes it immune from any possible exploitation by the investigative bodies (Cass., Sec. A. 13 February 1997, Carpenelli).

In the light of those precepts, the statements made by Amanda Marie Knox at 1.45 on 6 November 2007, resulted in the minutes being suspended, and she was placed at the disposal of' the judicial Authority {prosecutor} proceeding, since {the statements included} evidence that had emerged against her, and therefore are usable only contra alios {against others}, while the "spontaneous declarations" of 5.45 hours can not be used against the suspect nor against other people accused of complicity in the same crime, as there were no defensive guarantees given to the person who had already formally assumed the role of a suspect.

On the contrary, the memorial in English from Knox and translated into Italian is fully usable, according to Art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, since it is a document coming from the investigated (suspect), and it is spontaneously written defensive material. The provision in question allows the attribution of evidential significance to the document not only as such, and for its representative content, but also by virtue of the special bond that ties it to the suspect (or accused), so heightening the scrutiny of admissibility that the judge is required to perform.

------
Comment: The Gemelli CSC suggesting the use of Memoriale 1 against Knox is questionable because she wrote it while in police custody without counsel; ECHR case law requires defense counsel be provided as soon as a person is placed into police custody, precisely to develop a defense (Dayanan v. Turkey). Since the Memoriale documents police mistreatment amounting to coercion to obtain a statement from Knox, the use of it as authorized by the Gemelli CSC panel to essentially force a conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba will very likely be of concern to the ECHR and indicate a violation of Convention Article 6.1.

To my knowledge, there are no credible police transcripts or notes associated with the interrogation that were recorded at the relevant time.

I know (or believe) that there was a list of names of males who had visited the cottage as supposedly provided early in the interrogation by Amanda and written up by one of the female police officers.

I am certain there were the two statements in Italian, written up by the police (1st statement) and by the police or prosecutor (2nd statement, the "spontaneous" one) signed by Amanda.

I know of a statement signed by Sollecito from his interrogation.

I know there is the arrest warrant drawn up by Mignini on Nov. 6, which relied on heavily on Amanda's statements and included a citation of her phone text message that I believe should be considered false by omission of the "good night" (in Italian) ending. The omission changed the apparent meaning of the message.

I would like to know what other police transcripts or notes exist, recorded in writing or other reliable recording method, signed and dated, from the time of the interrogation or immediately afterwards, such as Nov. 6/7. My impression from the Boninsegna motivation report is that there were no such other transcripts or notes, not even a proper indication of when the questioning began and ended, which was a significant factor in leading Boninsegna to acquit Amanda of continuing aggravated calunnia against the police.

.

My guess is that the reason the police never made notes of the interogations is because they knew everything was being recorded, so why take notes? They never considered the recordings would come back to haunt them. They thought that once they 'broke' Amanda and/or Raffaele it would be a cake walk to a full confession and a guilty plea. They even made a big public statement about how they deduced everything and broke Amanda in order to make her confess to a version of the crime that they knew to be correct.

The kitchen knife taken from Raffaele's was another example of the same thought process. They used something, anything, to get him to spill the beans. Who cares if they just grabbed a knife at random? Who cares if it did not match the murder weapon imprint or the wounds? Who cares if it was not compatible with a premeditated crime? It was just a ruse to get Raffaele to squeal on Amanda. They probably expected him to say 'No, no, that is not the knife. The real knife was one that Amanda grabbed from the cottage's kitchen drawer'.

To give these cops credit for having the intelligence to foresee Amanda recanting the bullied statement, and Rafaelle sticking to his alibi, is pretty generous. To give them credit for the ability to consider they might be wrong, let alone foresee being wrong, is contrary to all their actions.

My guess is that the recordings of the interrogations are in the archives of the company that had recently installed all the modern electronic equipment, including the recording equipment, in the Questura. The same company would almost certainly procure a long term contract to do the off-site archiving of all the data produced, probably on a nightly basis via a secure communication link. Interestingly, that was the same company which got paid almost 200,000 euros to produce a fantasy cartoon of Mignini's fantasy sex crime. That bizarre little gift may have been an extra incentive to encourage them to remain quiet about the archived recordings.

So if anyone in Italy is searching for the missing interrogation recordings, try the company that was doing the off-site archiving of the Questura's data!

Either the police didn't record the interrogations or got rid of them if they did record them for the same reason Trump refuses to release his tax returns: they are hiding something. There is just no credible or logical reason for them not to record the interrogations or produce them otherwise.

I have found an error in translation in the English translation. Please note the following correction:

"This ambiguous quality of a person performing auxiliary duties {of interpretation} for the police and, at the same time, belonging to the investigators' own team was accompanied by maternal attitudes and emotional transport {transfer, conveyance} (in particular regarding the behavior not required and at least atypical of [two interpreters] and one of the police officers [some having taken familiar attitudes tending to create empathy with the applicant and the other having taken her hand in hand and having kissedembraced {hugged} (abbracciata) {the applicant} while she was making accusations against MDL)] (...).
____

The error results from a confusion or error in the translation from Italian to French and then to English.

The Italian "abbracciata" translates into English as "embraced" or "hugged". It is translated into French as "embrassée". However, the translation of "embrassée" into English may be either "kissed" or "embraced".

Here on ISF/JREF, both frequency of posting and frequency of viewing (a rough "lurker index") is down to their lowest levels ever. The previous low point for posting/viewing had been from Oct 2016 to Jan 2017, Continuation 23.

Posting/viewing is down 31% from that previous low.

Strangely, the highest points of posting/viewing was after the 2015 Marasca/Bruno acquittals, averaging fully 157 posts per day, and 5,325 "views" per day (Continuation 15).....

... as well as after the 2014 Nencini convictions with 162 posts and 6,724 views per day. That was Continuation 7.

In total there had been 99,502 posts before the 2014 reconviction, and 78,064 posts since.

The threads did not really catch fire until May 30, 2010, after the release of the Massei motivations report. That first thread lasted 7 months, had 25,050 posts and a whopping 1,187,764 views.

Add to this that IIP has virtually gone silent, and the same 5 or 6 diehards post to the nutter sites these days. Websleuths closed its "Amanda Knox" thread following the 2015 exonerations.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Even Vixen has gone mostly silent here. She must be busy spewing out the TJMK party line nonsense elsewhere. I wonder where that could be...

Back in April 2015, one of Vixen's original contributions to the thread was her forensic proof that Amanda had been in the murder room.

How had Vixen figured this out? By saying that Amanda's lamp had been found in the murder room, thus proving that Knox had to have been the one to take it there.

Indeed, Vixen's logic went: Knox's testimony to Giuliano Mignini at trial was that she neither knew it had been found in Meredith's room, nor that she'd ever noticed it gone from her own room. Therefore for Vixen that is Knox being caught in "a lie". If her lamp had been missing from her room, then she'd have had to have dressed in the dark. (And as another poster had shown, Knox had not been evasive under oath.)

Originally Posted by Vixen

Mez had a lamp of her own, which was also in the room.

The astonishing thing about this lamp was there were no fingerprints at all of Amanda's, she didn't report it missing, and she was evasive under oath that it belonged to her.

Originally Posted by Kauffer

You still cannot address what is put to you. It's a a dreadful habit.

Amanda's lamp is seen in at least three different positions in the crime scene photographs. Almost certainly, in my view, it was taken by one of the CSIs for a light source in order that evidence in the room was not disturbed. Alternatively, Kercher may have borrowed it herself for additional light - though I think not.

What you need to do is either endorse the theory that the lamp was used by Amanda in a cleaning exercise and explain the absence of evidence of such activity or else come up with some alternative theory with evidence for its plausibility.

There is no evidence that Kercher was "assaulted near her door". There is no evidence of "a lot of blood in the hallway" and there is no evidence of any cleaning carried out in an effort to remove traces linked to perpetration of the crime anywhere in the flat.

Additionally, I hardly see that pointing out the truth that there is no evidence in Kercher's room to support prosecution claims, amounts to "gloating brags". Why would you describe it in such pejorative terms?

You make claims which are patently untrue and embrace fantastical theories that require the accomplishment of impossible acts - in particular, the successful removal of evidence of the presence of two people whilst leaving intact, evidence of a third.

Quote:

The astonishing thing about this lamp is that it wasn't even collected as evidence on December 18th and hadn't been dusted for fingerprints. Several months later possibly even after the subsequent breakin at the cottage was discovered, the two lamps were collected. There was no evasion. Amanda admitted having such a lamp.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Very reluctantly, and only because she couldn't deny it.

Quote:

GM: Okay. Okay. Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of the bed. Was it yours?

AK: I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

GM: So the lamp was yours.

AK: I suppose it was.

GM: Was it missing from your room?

AK: You know, I didn't look.

GM: Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

AK: I don't know.

So we see again Vixen is making crap up or repeating discredited crap from the guilter site. This isn't looking good for Vixen's credibility. In the end she will probably be glad she is posting anonymously and this episode won't follow her. (or will it?)

Originally Posted by Vixen

Why did she say she "didn't know", when she failed to report it missing, her room must have been dark and she would have seen it through the keyhole.

Originally Posted by Kauffer

What? If the CSIs took the lamp into Kercher's room on the afternoon of the 2nd, which is the most probable explanation, then it was never actually missing from Amanda's room the last time she was in there. If Kercher had borrowed it, then it really cannot be suspicious that she failed to notice it when she was briefly in her room on the morning of the 2nd, when she would have had no possible reason to want to turn it on and thus notice it's absence.

Why should she have noticed it in Kercher's room through the keyhole? Apart from anything else, it is very unlikely to have been in the room, as I have discussed.

You haven't explained what you think the lamp can possibly prove.

Originally Posted by Vixen

It was in the murder room. Amanda took it there. Amanda's presence is in the murder room.

It has been pretty much unrestrained posting of points which amount to never actually answering the questions as put, just going around in a wide circle to reiterate the allegation originally offered.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

What came to my mind is why did Amanda have to have a lamp in her room when it was late morning and she had a window in her room? Looking at the police video of Nov. 2, it's a clear day.Throwing on some clothes does not take a lot of light.
As for the lamp, did it have no fingerprints on it or only unidentifiable prints?That is not unusual. Many prints were found in the cottage that were not identifiable due to being smudged or being overlaid.

What came to my mind is why did Amanda have to have a lamp in her room when it was late morning and she had a window in her room? Looking at the police video of Nov. 2, it's a clear day.Throwing on some clothes does not take a lot of light.
As for the lamp, did it have no fingerprints on it or only unidentifiable prints?That is not unusual. Many prints were found in the cottage that were not identifiable due to being smudged or being overlaid.

This was another one of those classic guilter theories that was laughably illogical. On the one hand they claimed Amanda forgot to remove the lamp before locking the door, going so far as to say that was the reason why Raffaele tried to break the door down. But then, on the other hand, they claimed there were no prints on it because Amanda cleaned them off. It must be the first time in history someone anticipated forgetting something and therefore wiped their prints before forgetting to remove it from the scene.

This was another one of those classic guilter theories that was laughably illogical. On the one hand they claimed Amanda forgot to remove the lamp before locking the door, going so far as to say that was the reason why Raffaele tried to break the door down. But then, on the other hand, they claimed there were no prints on it because Amanda cleaned them off. It must be the first time in history someone anticipated forgetting something and therefore wiped their prints before forgetting to remove it from the scene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen
Why did she say she "didn't know", when she failed to report it missing, her room must have been dark and she would have seen it through the keyhole.

This is the classic PGP ignoring the obvious to present a guilt spin.

Knox "failed to report it missing" indicates that she must have known it was missing. And "her room must have been dark" is an illogical assumption. There was no reason she should have noticed the unneeded lamp wasn't in her room when, as I said, it was late morning on a clear day with light coming in through the window.

Vixen's statement that "she must have seen it through the keyhole" is confusing as she's talking about Knox's bedroom. The only thing that makes sense is that she jumps to the lamp in Kercher's bedroom and means Knox would have seen it through Kercher's door keyhole. Assuming that's what she means, why should Knox have seen it when it was found on the floor at the foot of the bed which was not visible through the keyhole?

Knox "failed to report it missing" indicates that she must have known it was missing. And "her room must have been dark" is an illogical assumption. There was no reason she should have noticed the unneeded lamp wasn't in her room when, as I said, it was late morning on a clear day with light coming in through the window.

Vixen's statement that "she must have seen it through the keyhole" is confusing as she's talking about Knox's bedroom. The only thing that makes sense is that she jumps to the lamp in Kercher's bedroom and means Knox would have seen it through Kercher's door keyhole. Assuming that's what she means, why should Knox have seen it when it was found on the floor at the foot of the bed which was not visible through the keyhole?

But wait. Let's humour the pair and assume there really has been a burglary. So, Knox goes away to do an inventory of her room. She finds her own €300 rent money is intact (lucky her) and her laptop. Having reported the burglary and the cops ask for a list of what's missing, it is rather odd she failed to report her lamp missing. When the judge asked her if it was her lamp on the floor in Mez' room, she hummed and ha-ed and said she wasn't sure.

Really??? She claimed to have arrived home to have a shower and then went to her room to change. It would have been pretty dark. Maybe you wouldn't need a light on a dark November morning. But when asked, 'what is missing?' and your roommate has been murdered, you would surely notice the only source of artificial light in your room is not there.

Clear now?

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

But wait. Let's humour the pair and assume there really has been a burglary. So, Knox goes away to do an inventory of her room. She finds her own €300 rent money is intact (lucky her) and her laptop. Having reported the burglary and the cops ask for a list of what's missing, it is rather odd she failed to report her lamp missing. When the judge asked her if it was her lamp on the floor in Mez' room, she hummed and ha-ed and said she wasn't sure.

Really??? She claimed to have arrived home to have a shower and then went to her room to change. It would have been pretty dark. Maybe you wouldn't need a light on a dark November morning. But when asked, 'what is missing?' and your roommate has been murdered, you would surely notice the only source of artificial light in your room is not there.

Clear now?

No, they didn't. They reported a 'break in'. It was a cheap lamp. Not the type of item a burglar would be stealing and the type of thing you would be looking for. You DON'T HAVE A CLUE how light or dark the room is. Windows may be all that is necessary. Also, they were hustled out of the room not even allowed to take clothing with them.

You also have no idea , none how the lamp made its way into that bedroom. How do you know that a detective didn't remove it from Amanda's bedroom to illuminate the crime scene without disturbing it. You DON'T. None of us do. Could Amanda have brought the lamp into Meredith's bedroom to assist cleaning up the crime scene which left no evidence of a cleanup? Not likely.

There is no more evidence of your theory then there is of Jesus being the son of God.

In your mind that makes her guilty. But therein lies the difference between us. I require evidence and you only need a good story.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

But wait. Let's humour the pair and assume there really has been a burglary. So, Knox goes away to do an inventory of her room. She finds her own €300 rent money is intact (lucky her) and her laptop. Having reported the burglary and the cops ask for a list of what's missing, it is rather odd she failed to report her lamp missing. When the judge asked her if it was her lamp on the floor in Mez' room, she hummed and ha-ed and said she wasn't sure.

Really??? She claimed to have arrived home to have a shower and then went to her room to change. It would have been pretty dark. Maybe you wouldn't need a light on a dark November morning. But when asked, 'what is missing?' and your roommate has been murdered, you would surely notice the only source of artificial light in your room is not there.

Clear now?

Um...there was a burglary: Meredith's money, credit cards and phones were stolen by Guede.

No burglary was reported. A break-in was reported:

Quote:

POLICE: Carabinieri

RS: Hello, good day, listen ... someone has entered the house breaking the window and has made a big mess and there is a closed door.

Quote:

POLICE: Theft [burglary] in the house eh?

RS: No, there's no theft... they broke a window... there is a mess... there is also a closed door... a mess.

(TJMK Transript of first call)

No mention of a burglary, only a break-in. Strike one for you.

So, after ascertaining her money and computer were not stolen, you think Amanda would have noticed a freaking table lamp was missing? Strike two for you.

What part of this reply from Knox is hummed or ha'd? It's a forthright and direct answer.

Quote:

GM: Okay. Okay. Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of the bed. Was it yours?

At least you got the November and morning right, but it wasn't "dark". It was between 10:30 and 11:00 on a clear day with a window in a small room.

Try and get your timeline right. When they were asked if anything was missing, the murder had not yet been discovered.
All she did was change clothes in the room. Do you always turn on your bedroom light in late morning on a clear day to throw on some clothes? I know I don't have to...even on a gloomy and rainy late morning. Which that morning wasn't.

But a picture is worth a thousand words. Take a look at this video taken on Nov 2 of Amanda's room and tell me if she needed to turn on a lamp in her "dark" room.

At least you got the November and morning right, but it wasn't "dark". It was between 10:30 and 11:00 on a clear day with a window in a small room.

Try and get your timeline right. When they were asked if anything was missing, the murder had not yet been discovered.
All she did was change clothes in the room. Do you always turn on your bedroom light in late morning on a clear day to throw on some clothes? I know I don't have to...even on a gloomy and rainy late morning. Which that morning wasn't.

But a picture is worth a thousand words. Take a look at this video taken on Nov 2 of Amanda's room and tell me if she needed to turn on a lamp in her "dark" room.

It's hard to know how much of this is Vixen deliberately lying and distorting events but personally, I think this actually showcases her confirmation bias and how much it owns her.

First, Vixen claims Amanda went in and did an inventory of her room and found her rent money "intact". In fact, Amanda already had her rent money as well as money for their trip to Gubbio on her and she only went into her room to change, long before Amanda even realized the cottage had been broken into. But Vixen, either deliberately or subconsciously, wants people to think Amanda went into her room and itemized things and yet failed to notice a lamp missing. To further enforce this concept she claims "it would have been pretty dark" when the facts suggest otherwise. For Vixen, it's important to suggest it would be dark because then one would think Amanda would have looked to use her lamp and thus realized it was missing.

Vixen writes; "But when asked, 'what is missing?' and your roommate has been murdered, you would surely notice the only source of artificial light in your room is not there." She believes Amanda is avoiding mentioning the lamp and so conflates events to support her belief. But as you point out, when Amanda was asked what was missing only the break-in has been discovered, and in that regard you're only going to notice items of value. And, in fact, because the obvious items of value were still there it's understandable to conclude nothing was taken. Why else would someone think a desk lamp was such a critical item so as to reason "...you would surely notice..." the lamp missing unless your confirmation bias led you there.

Vixen believes Amanda is guilty of murder and is therefore incapable of evaluating this case in an objective manner. Everything is seen through guilt colored glasses. It's truly laughable that Vixen once claimed to be fair and open minded about the case.

No, they didn't. They reported a 'break in'. It was a cheap lamp. Not the type of item a burglar would be stealing and the type of thing you would be looking for. You DON'T HAVE A CLUE how light or dark the room is. Windows may be all that is necessary. Also, they were hustled out of the room not even allowed to take clothing with them.

You also have no idea , none how the lamp made its way into that bedroom. How do you know that a detective didn't remove it from Amanda's bedroom to illuminate the crime scene without disturbing it. You DON'T. None of us do. Could Amanda have brought the lamp into Meredith's bedroom to assist cleaning up the crime scene which left no evidence of a cleanup? Not likely.

There is no more evidence of your theory then there is of Jesus being the son of God.

In your mind that makes her guilty. But therein lies the difference between us. I require evidence and you only need a good story.

Saying, 'the forensic police must have taken the lamp into the room' is pure London John - style conjecture. It still doesn't explain why Knox did not report it missing or why her fingerprints were not on it.

The scientific forensic team would NOT introduce an item of potential contamination into the murder room. That is a stupid suggestion.

Maybe I'll meet you at the Gates of St Peter one day. Then you can tell me whether you believe in the afterlife or not. I'll go and stand around the throne of the Lamb and sing his praises for eternity, and you can go socialise on the other side of the gate with the list of people as itemised in Revelation 22:15.

Incidentally, the reading at Meredith Kercher's funeral stopped just short of the verse which condemns the likes of her killers to be barred from heaven.

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

It's hard to know how much of this is Vixen deliberately lying and distorting events but personally, I think this actually showcases her confirmation bias and how much it owns her.

< ..... sinister deletia ..... >

Vixen believes Amanda is guilty of murder and is therefore incapable of evaluating this case in an objective manner. Everything is seen through guilt colored glasses. It's truly laughable that Vixen once claimed to be fair and open minded about the case.

To be fair, Vixen's very first series of postings back in late April 2015 was to raise inconsistencies in the 2011 Hellmann Appeal's court acquittals. She contrasted the "did not commit the act" verdicts with Hellmann sustaining the lower court conviction on calunnia against Lumumba.

She had said, though, that she had not (then) made up her mind on over all guilt or innocence. As far as I can find in reviewing those earliest posts, nothing in them betrayed anything different.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

It's hard to know how much of this is Vixen deliberately lying and distorting events but personally, I think this actually showcases her confirmation bias and how much it owns her.

First, Vixen claims Amanda went in and did an inventory of her room and found her rent money "intact". In fact, Amanda already had her rent money as well as money for their trip to Gubbio on her and she only went into her room to change, long before Amanda even realized the cottage had been broken into. But Vixen, either deliberately or subconsciously, wants people to think Amanda went into her room and itemized things and yet failed to notice a lamp missing. To further enforce this concept she claims "it would have been pretty dark" when the facts suggest otherwise. For Vixen, it's important to suggest it would be dark because then one would think Amanda would have looked to use her lamp and thus realized it was missing.

Vixen writes; "But when asked, 'what is missing?' and your roommate has been murdered, you would surely notice the only source of artificial light in your room is not there." She believes Amanda is avoiding mentioning the lamp and so conflates events to support her belief. But as you point out, when Amanda was asked what was missing only the break-in has been discovered, and in that regard you're only going to notice items of value. And, in fact, because the obvious items of value were still there it's understandable to conclude nothing was taken. Why else would someone think a desk lamp was such a critical item so as to reason "...you would surely notice..." the lamp missing unless your confirmation bias led you there.

Vixen believes Amanda is guilty of murder and is therefore incapable of evaluating this case in an objective manner. Everything is seen through guilt colored glasses. It's truly laughable that Vixen once claimed to be fair and open minded about the case.

You do know that Amanda and Raff were hanging around in her room as witnessed by the police. What a marvellous coincidence Knox' cash in hand is exactly the same as the amount stolen from Mez, and how fortuitous she remembered to remove all her effects, including her passport whilst she was there!

I am still waiting for a credible alibi - bearing in mind Raff's press conference during the Appeal to announce he cannot vouch for where Knox was between 20:45 and 01:00 on the murder night - and a credible alternative theory as to who Rudy's accomplices were. Or are we back to her star witness Aviello again?

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Sigh. You simply will not present a clear account, then taunt us to "get clear" or "ask Raffaelle". Such is why your guilt-PR campaign never catches people's interest.... because the points in your own posts make little sense.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

You do know that Amanda and Raff were hanging around in her room as witnessed by the police.

You don't even know the basics of this case. You invent, "they wrre hanging around in her room as witnessed by the police," when no one in the past 10+ years has ever said that, much less the police ever said that.

Doesn't stop you though. You just make things up.

Originally Posted by Vixen

I am still waiting for a credible alibi - bearing in mind Raff's press conference during the Appeal to announce he cannot vouch for where Knox was between 20:45 and 01:00 on the murder night - and a credible alternative theory as to who Rudy's accomplices were. Or are we back to her star witness Aviello again?

Once again you simply make things up about the alibi. If you had read either of Raffaele's book or his appeal document you would have read him sustaining himself as Knox's alibi.

Doesn't stop you though. You just make things up.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

You do know that Amanda and Raff were hanging around in her room as witnessed by the police. What a marvellous coincidence Knox' cash in hand is exactly the same as the amount stolen from Mez, and how fortuitous she remembered to remove all her effects, including her passport whilst she was there!

I am still waiting for a credible alibi - bearing in mind Raff's press conference during the Appeal to announce he cannot vouch for where Knox was between 20:45 and 01:00 on the murder night - and a credible alternative theory as to who Rudy's accomplices were. Or are we back to her star witness Aviello again?

Look who's doing the speculating now!

Do you ever consider the lunacy of your speculation? If they staged the scene why would they wait till the police arrived before slinking off to her bedroom to grab her things?

When I travel outside the country I always have my passport with me, especially if I plan to travel away from where I am staying as Amanda and Raffaele planned to do that day. How is that suspicious?

What evidence do you have that Meredith had money stolen or how much it was? What evidence do you have that the money Amanda had in her possession wasn't her money? What evidence do you have that she removed anything from her bedroom once the police arrived?

Credible alibi - they were alone together in Raffaele's apartment the entire evening. There is NO contradicting evidence of this.

Raffaele did NOT say he could not vouch for where Amanda was between 20:45 and 01:00. What he said in his appeal was if the Florence court was going to accept the content of the memo's written by Amanda as the truth, then the courts have to also accept he wasn't there since she doesn't mention him in them. It was a legal strategy. You're being incredibly dishonest by making this claim.

There was no accomplice - Guede acted alone. The convicting courts erred when they chose to disregard expert testimony that confirmed the wounds were compatible or consistent with a lone attacker.

Credible alibi - they were alone together in Raffaele's apartment the entire evening. There is NO contradicting evidence of this.

Raffaele did NOT say he could not vouch for where Amanda was between 20:45 and 01:00. What he said in his appeal was if the Florence court was going to accept the content of the memo's written by Amanda as the truth, then the courts have to also accept he wasn't there since she doesn't mention him in them. It was a legal strategy. You're being incredibly dishonest by making this claim.

There was no accomplice - Guede acted alone. The convicting courts erred when they chose to disregard expert testimony that confirmed the wounds were compatible or consistent with a lone attacker.

This.

And thus the reason why the guilter-PR machine house-of-cards ultimately falls. It's the reason why they have never, ever put together a time-line for this crime; a reason picked up by the final acquitting court when it had in March 2015 overturned the Nencini conviction.

Fundamentally, they do not know what to do with Raffaele, or where he fits into the prosecution theory(ies) of the crime. If the prosecution was going to present that early evidence of Amanda's involvement, then Raffaele quite correctly said, "What's that then got to do with me?"

The answer? Nothing. And if Raffaele is suddenly free from suspicion - he becomes AMANDA'S ALIBI! That's how this guilt house of cards ultimately collapses.

In the first 6 months after the two had been jailed (precautionary detention) even Giuliano Mignini gave voice to this: he was perplexed as to why Raffaele had not turned on Amanda, ratting her out for some reduced sentence. Even Raffaele's own family had wondered that!

The police and prosecutor had pulled a random knife from Raffaele's, right in front of him, to pressure him. After the real killer, Guede, had replaced Lumumba as part of the crime, it was then that they had to return to the cottage 46 days later to go get something against Raffaele.... the bra-clasp....

.... which had not been collected originally, and subsequentially had been allowed to rust away in Stefanoni's care.

It really is this simple: the earliest evidence against Amanda, however coerced or imaginary, had had nothing to do with Raffaele. And if true, then Raffaele becomes her alibi. There's no way around that.

That's why it is eventually fatal to the guilt-PR campaign to keep harping on that press conference - claiming that at that time, Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi for Knox. If that had been true does that mean that Raffaele is suddenly scot-free in the guilter's timeline?

What timeline? Until the guilter-PR campaign deals with this, the last word on it belongs to the final acquitting court which had said that Judge Nencini had erred in his findings of time of death vis a vis alibi:

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno

The Sollecito defence is right to object in pointing out the need for investigation of (time of death) and all its implications, especially in a circumstantial case like this one. Not only that, but the exact determination of Kercher’s time of death is an unavoidable factual prerequisite for the verification of the defendant’s alibi, in the form of an inquiry aimed at ascertaining the possibility of his alleged presence in the house on via della Pergola at the time of the murder. It is for this reason that an appropriate expert review was requested.

Now, on this point too one must register a deplorable carelessness in the preliminary investigation phase. It suffices to consider that the findings of the judicial police had proposed a banal arithmetic mean between a possible earliest time and a possible a possible latest time

Please also note that the M/B report calls Raffaele's presence at the cottage only "alleged". "Alleged" for the purposes of considering Nencini's lack of logic in placing him there.

Until the guilter-PR machine can put together a time-line that deals with all the evidence (or lack of same) there is no reason to doubt the ultimate outcome of this case.

Guede is guilty. Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.